A waste of 90 minutes of my life

A Major Disappointment

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

OK, let's start off by saying this is not "Halloween," "The Exorcist," or its ilk. It is B-Movie horror, which is fine. The people giving this movie 1 out of 10 and whining about "bad CGI" obviously didn't bother to look at the budget of the film ($1.5 million - considerably lower than the classic horror blockbusters). Is it predictable? Of course it is. So what? If you were expecting to sit down and watch a timeless classic, you should have rented "Casablanca" or "The Wizard of Oz." Ranting about bad acting (which, while not the best acting in the world, is certainly not the worst) and bad directing (if you can do better, let's see it), and claiming that anyone who gave it a good review "obviously" worked on the movie (oh, you're omniscient now?) makes for a really amateur review. If you didn't like the movie, that's your opinion, but at least give actual examples of why you thought the acting and directing were bad, and don't shoot off at the mouth insulting reviewers who disagreed with you. Just because someone has only reviewed one movie on IMDb doesn't automatically mean they worked on that movie. Maybe they actually have a life and don't have time to review five billion movies like some people apparently can.Now, as I say, this isn't some high-caliber horror flick that is going to win an Oscar. It isn't meant to be. It is a fun suspense flick that makes for nice Halloween fare for a horror movie marathon. The plot isn't completely unique, but it is a decent concept of good vs evil. It utilizes the idea of someone perverting religion to suit his own needs, and we see the consequences of that - pure evil. We have a protagonist that is not perfect, but is overall a decent human being. The cinematographers make good use of lighting, though I would have liked to see more usage of angles to make the views more dramatic. I'm not sure why people are complaining about "bad CGI," since there is very little CGI used in the film, and it is certainly not needed. People have become far too dependent upon seeing flashy SFX in order to be entertained. The acting is sometimes a little stilted, but for the most part, the emotion is raw and realistic.The important thing to remember is that this is low-budget horror meant to entertain horror fans. If you don't "get it," that may be why. If you are used to only going to the movies to see lots of blood, explosions, and cleavage, with everything neatly wrapped up so you don't have to think, then this movie isn't for you. Not everyone is going to enjoy these types of movies. Insulting those who do doesn't make you a good reviewer, though, it just makes you immature.

Most reviews make this out to be horrid. I watched it because of Jaimie Alexander and Hudson Leick. I wasn't expecting very much, especially with plot keywords like "Killer scarecrow", and it's not my particular favorite horror sub-genre.In the end, it wasn't that bad. It was somewhat predictable, falling prey to many clichés of the genre. It had a couple twists to make it seem to break away though. Overall the acting was OK...some of the townspeople seemed a little cardboard, but the leads do a good job.It could have done with a few less scenes of people running through cornfields, but at 83 minutes with credits, I think it needed all the time it could get. If you like Jaimie, it's a good view. While the storyline is a little generic, overall it is mostly put together well and better than some things out there.

JAIMIE Alexander is a young woman who inadvertently stumbles upon a town full of loonies who believe a legend about a demented preacher involved in human sacrifices. The ghost of a town is the wrong place for a gal like Alexander to be, for she's in immediate peril from them and a scarecrow that comes to life.It's all very reminiscent of every horror film ever made about cornfields and "children of the corn" and skies full of menacing black crows. This one had a lot of potential if it knew that the real scares would come from the scarecrow coming to life and had developed that theme in a more compelling way. The scarecrow angle could have been played for better thrills.BRIAN McNAMARA, as the town sheriff who knows more than he's willing to say about everything, is fine, but JAIMIE Alexander gives the impression that she's not capable or willing to give the role of the distraught woman more than a basic reading.I just happened to come across it while surfing cable TV and stayed tuned to see whether it developed into a logical fright film. It didn't. Too many loopholes and implausible circumstances throughout, but it was at least an average thriller of its kind. The cornfield scenes were extremely well photographed but there was a tacky "direct to TV" look about the rest of the film.

After she becomes stranded in a small town, a young woman (played by Jaimie Alexander of "Rest Stop") discovers her arrival there was foretold a century earlier by the town's founding preacher and that she is an integral part of his impending -- and terrifying -- rebirth. Oh, and there's a scarecrow that likes to kill people, too.So I waited too long to write this review and the film is no longer fresh in my mind. Therefore, I cannot make very good specific criticisms. Sorry. But maybe the film isn't worth a thorough dissemination, as it really wasn't particularly good. I enjoy Jaimie Alexander, so it was nice to see her in another horror movie (are you a horror actress or a TV actress, Jaimie?) but besides that... I don't know.Having seen both "Superstition" and "Horror Rises From the Tomb" this year, the idea of a prophecy that has an old religious fanatic coming back from the grave really wasn't a shocking new development in cinema for me. So this time it was a preacher instead of a warlock or witch... it was still a man who believes in the supernatural who had turned to killing in order to get his way with things, so there's not really a huge stretch.What really struck me as the mistake with this film is the focus on the city of believers (not unlike "The Reaping" or any other film with a religious, isolated city) and not so much on the scarecrow that came back to kill people. I didn't quite understand the scarecrow, but I wanted to see more of him (an maybe get a better background). People with cult beliefs just don't do it for me, unless there's some really, really good explanation (which there rarely is). I'd complain about the cop being in on the whole thing, but I already made that complaint today in my review for "Lake Dead"... just stop it already! Should I complain about the gas station being in on it, too? You know, like "House of 1000 Corpses" or "Vacancy" or many others? Do all these small towns take notes from the same textbook?Sure, you get a crucifixion. I like them, you like them... we all like seeing people nailed to the cross. Some of us like to look at this sort of thing once a week or more (I'm not one of those people). So there's blood. I don't recall any nudity, though... unfortunately. I mean, I like Jaimie Alexander with clothe on -- she's classy. But she had a friend in the film... if you're going to die anyway, why not just take your shirt off?Like I said, I cannot make very good specific complaints. But I wasn't impressed. Everything about this film reeked off some other films. Oh, scarecrows like "Jeepers Creepers" or corn rows like... "Children of the Corn"? And I've already made numerous other references in this review. I suppose if you're going to rent this, you're going to rent this. Some of you may even be gullible enough to buy it. But I want you to know if you're going to do it, it's not going to be because of me. My copy is getting less play than Richard Simmons at the Playboy Mansion.